"pride source" smear Ron Paul

[Ex Post Facto]

Article found here: http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=28769

Creep of the Week: Ron Paul
By D'Anne Witkowski
Originally printed 01/17/2008 (Issue 1603 - Between The Lines News)

Ron Paul is, by far, the Republican Presidential hopeful with the most indie cred. Not only is he against the war, he's also attracted a dedicated following who are throwing fist fulls of money at him via the Internet. He's the Howard Dean of Republicans. He's also been "blogging" before blogging was cool - hell, before blogging even existed - via political newsletters that go back to 1978.

Unfortunately, the 20 years of newsletters don't exactly highlight Paul's chewy libertarian center folks are so wild about. In fact, the Ron Paul Political Report says things that should give voters great pause, if not scare the shit out of them.

According to a Jan. 8 article in The National Republic, the Report often praised Rep. William Dannemeyer "who advocated quarantining people with AIDS." On gays in the military the Report concluded, "Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals." Limp wrist jokes were made, a longing for "the closet" was expressed and Donna Shalala was called a "short lesbian."

The Report also loved AIDS - or, more accurately they loved the political ammunition the issue gave them. As for people living with the disease, well, "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners. ... [T]hey enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

That's gay men for you. Drama queens until the end.

In 1990 AIDS was described as "a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby," according to TNR. Readers were warned to steer clear of blood transfusions because gays were "poison[ing] the blood supply" The Report also claimed you could get AIDS from saliva and that AIDS carriers "should not be allowed to eat in restaurants."

But then, it was the 1990s and thinking about gays has come a long way since then. Sure the views espoused in the Report are despicable, but gay bashing had yet to become politically incorrect. So we can't be too hard on Paul, can we?

Well, even if homophobia was more or less accepted in the 90s, racism was not. The Ron Paul Report is rife with gems like this one from June 1992 issue about the aftermath of the Los Angeles riots: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks." In 1990 the newsletter referred to the federal holiday named after Martin Luther King Jr. as "annual Hate Whitey Day." They also referred to King as a "philanderer" who "seduced underage girls and boys."

What does Paul have to say about all of this? He didn't write the articles and has no idea who did. Keep in mind, the newsletter had his name on it, but the articles that ran in it contained no bylines and Paul was, according to him, completely oblivious to what was being written and published in his name for two decades.

Frankly, I find that a little hard to believe. But then, I'm just a short lesbian.

[Iowa4Paul]

Article found here: http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=28769

Creep of the Week: Ron Paul
By D'Anne Witkowski
Originally printed 01/17/2008 (Issue 1603 - Between The Lines News)

Ron Paul is, by far, the Republican Presidential hopeful with the most indie cred. Not only is he against the war, he's also attracted a dedicated following who are throwing fist fulls of money at him via the Internet. He's the Howard Dean of Republicans. He's also been "blogging" before blogging was cool - hell, before blogging even existed - via political newsletters that go back to 1978.

Unfortunately, the 20 years of newsletters don't exactly highlight Paul's chewy libertarian center folks are so wild about. In fact, the Ron Paul Political Report says things that should give voters great pause, if not scare the shit out of them.

According to a Jan. 8 article in The National Republic, the Report often praised Rep. William Dannemeyer "who advocated quarantining people with AIDS." On gays in the military the Report concluded, "Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals." Limp wrist jokes were made, a longing for "the closet" was expressed and Donna Shalala was called a "short lesbian."

The Report also loved AIDS - or, more accurately they loved the political ammunition the issue gave them. As for people living with the disease, well, "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners. ... [T]hey enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

That's gay men for you. Drama queens until the end.

In 1990 AIDS was described as "a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby," according to TNR. Readers were warned to steer clear of blood transfusions because gays were "poison[ing] the blood supply" The Report also claimed you could get AIDS from saliva and that AIDS carriers "should not be allowed to eat in restaurants."

But then, it was the 1990s and thinking about gays has come a long way since then. Sure the views espoused in the Report are despicable, but gay bashing had yet to become politically incorrect. So we can't be too hard on Paul, can we?

Well, even if homophobia was more or less accepted in the 90s, racism was not. The Ron Paul Report is rife with gems like this one from June 1992 issue about the aftermath of the Los Angeles riots: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks." In 1990 the newsletter referred to the federal holiday named after Martin Luther King Jr. as "annual Hate Whitey Day." They also referred to King as a "philanderer" who "seduced underage girls and boys."

What does Paul have to say about all of this? He didn't write the articles and has no idea who did. Keep in mind, the newsletter had his name on it, but the articles that ran in it contained no bylines and Paul was, according to him, completely oblivious to what was being written and published in his name for two decades.

Frankly, I find that a little hard to believe. But then, I'm just a short lesbian.

It's more bullshit.

[fmontez]

It's a story, like many out there, people don't like the Newsletters. The issue will go away when the writers are outed.

[freedom-maniac]

Don't worry. This is old news. It will come to pass. The idea that MLK day is "Hate Whitey Day" will die if Free At Last 08 turns out big.

[warmth of the sun]

The most annoying part about the way this is written is that it appears that the newsletters had racist smears for over 20 years, when in reality the ones with the questionable stuff on race and sexual orientation are all from the early 90s when Ron Paul had retired from politics and was practicing medicine.

[diesirae]

Honestly, I can see why a gay publication would be pretty offended about some of the stuff in those newsletters. Again, it's old news, but old news some people are just learning about. It should blow over, but it's kind of amusing to see people get offended all over again.

[Travis B]

not to mention none of it is the direct word of ron paul

[driller80545]

I thought Huckabee was the one who wanted to quarantine people with aids

[Mini-Me]

driller, that's not all Huckabee wants to do - he wants to write "no gay marriage" into the friggin Constitution, of all things. But no, people would much rather slam Ron Paul, the one guy who wouldn't make his personal feelings into policy, even if he did harbor hatred (which he obviously doesn't).

These newsletter smears are ridiculous...as I commented on one blog:


Our society is so delusional that, despite all of the grave problems our country is facing, somehow the ridiculous "racist newsletter" smears are considered condemning enough to override everything and make us rule out the only candidate with the courage to face all of our problems realistically. Nevermind the fact that he didn't even write the newsletters. Nevermind the fact that he outright states he does not approve of those ideas. Nevermind the fact that the controversial statements didn't start until 12 years after the newsletter started (and during a time of riots and high racial tension). Nevermind the fact that he was too busy running his medical practice to closely scrutinize newsletters that for 12 years showed no betrayal of trust by the actual authors and editors. His mere association apparently implies guilt. The fact is, we have become so defensive and insecure as a society that nobody wants any association with someone who has some association with someone who made racist comments fifteen years ago, right? Otherwise that might make people think you're a racist, and nobody wants that! The entire idea is preposterous, yet it's the only "scandal" anyone can pin on Paul. Be honest with yourself: Is this overemphasized smear really worth voting against the only candidate with a hope of saving our country from the brink?

Just replace "racist" (adjective) with "homophobic" and "racist" (noun) with "homophobe," and the same point applies. "Who cares if the Fed is rampantly printing money like a third world banana republic - the BIGGEST problem our society is facing is that a Presidential candidate has a shaky connection to racist and homophobic statements!" Right? ...asinine.

[Johncjackson]

It's a story, like many out there, people don't like the Newsletters. The issue will go away when the writers are outed.

Well here that is what made people upset, The writers have been "outed" for a long time. A lot of people here support Lew Rockwell first and then Ron Paul. Since everyone freaked out when the "open secret" was reported. People who didnt mind that Ron Paul supposedly authored these things got very upset when they realized LR may have been involved. That's when all the attacks on TNR, reason, cato, "cosmo" libertarians, really started.

Even Ron Paul's own staff has commented on it.

The writers were "Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, and 7-8 other interns, associates, ghostwriters, whatever."

Ron Paul is not a racist. lew Rockwell is not necessarily a racist.

( and I wrote this part here way before reason or anyone else laid this out).
In the late 80s early 90s Ron Paul was coming off being a Congressman and POTUS candidate. He was the star libertarian/constitutionalist in the political world. he sold newsletters. A lot of people interested in limited government are militia who like guns, dont trust government, fear minorities, and are into conspiracies. And they buy newsletters and donate money to Ron paul. Rockwell/Rothbard wanted to appeal more to a certain demographic and thought for whatever reason this would make a good political bloc/movement. Maybe Paul agreed. who knows. The put out newsletters and made millions$$$. Dr. RP was in medical practice. other people wrote a lot of the stuff.

It popped up in 1996. he managed to recover. he made new claims in 2001 that he didnt write it.

It popped up again in 2007. But now he is running for President of the United States as the 'anti-war, sound money, individual rights" candidate. He is not running for a Congressional seat that represents about 0.2% of the people. he is not peddling Y2K newsletters or anything. It's a whole different ballgame.

If anything the campaign became more successful than expected and became a target. When he entered, I doubt RP or his staff ever expected to raise $30 million or Beat Rudy in multiple states. But they did and he became a target and the expectations were raised.

That includes handling "old stuff" that is brought up for political purposes. He could have handled it a lot of ways. Apparently Kent Snyder or someone probably gave him bad advice.

I have seen lots of good advice from Ron Paul supporters, but they just get attacked by fellow "supporters."